2 PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL MUSEUM vol. 109 i| 



Specimens in the collections of the Chicago Natural History :| 

 Museum, the United States National Museum, the Academy of 

 Natural Sciences of Philadelphia, the Carnegie Museum, and the jl 

 private collections of Mr. R. L. Hoffman and of the author were 

 examined. Dr. Nell B. Causey of the University of Ai'kansas kindly 

 lent the type specimens of Brachoria benderi and Tucoria calceata for 

 study. 



Inasmuch as the value and accuracy of a paper such as this depends 

 in large part on certainty of identification, great effort was made to 

 examine the type specimens of previously described species whenever 

 possible, I personally examined the holotypes of the following: 



Fontaria indianae BoUman Tucoria dynama Chamberliii 



Fontaria glendalea Chamberlin Anfradogon tenebrans Hoffman 



Fontaria kentuckiana Causey Tucoria viridicolens Hoffman 



Cleptoria splendida Causey Brachoria hansonia Causey 



Brachoria brachypus Chamberlin Brachoria benderi Causey 



Brachoria separanda Chamberlin Tucoria calceata Causey 



Dr. R. V. Chamberlin of the University of Utah was kind enough 

 to compare Brachoria specimens sent him by the author with his 

 holotypes of B. initialis, B. eutypa, and B. ethotela. Thus I have been 

 able to examine metatypes of these thi"ee species. 



Several specimens in the personal collection of R. L. Hoffman are 

 undoubtedly conspecific with Brachoria electa Causey. 



It is thus apparent that in the course of this study specimens of all 

 the named forms in this genus except Fontaria ochra Chamberlin and 

 Brachoria sequens Chamberlin have been examined. Personal com- 

 munications from Dr. Chamberlin have supplied information con- 

 cerning these two forms. 



One thing that in the past has caused much confusion in this group 

 has been the lack of uniformity in the methods of illustrating the male 

 gonopods, which provide the most important taxonomic characters 

 for the group. For each genus, certain appropriate positions of the 

 gonopods should be chosen and care should be taken that all drawings 

 are made from as nearly the same angle as possible. Many needless 

 synonyms would have been avoided if this practice had been followed 

 in the past. With structures as complicated as these, drawings made 

 from different angles can readily give the impression of representing 

 different species, and comparisons are extremely difficult. 



The illustrations of the male gonopods used in this paper were made 

 using a l>inocular microscope fitted with an ocular reticule. The left 

 gonopod was removed from the animal and placed on a bit of cotton 

 submerged in alcohol in a watch glass, great care being taken to 

 orient the gonopod into the precise position required. Most gonopods 

 were then drawn from three views, cephalic, caudal, and mesial. In 

 two instances the mesial view was omitted and a ventral view sub- 



